May 05, 2004

The Magic Kingdom of Oceania declares Michael Moore a 'nonperson' I really don't know what to think about this. What's next: when he gets another (foreign?) distributor, it gets rated X?
posted by Flagpole 20 years ago
  • As posted by the hmonc here.
  • They screwed over Kevin Smith in a very similar fashion, though I believe it was for more religious, rather than political, reasons. Michael Eisner is such a cocksucking bitch. He should really just resign now, already.
  • I personally think Michael Moore is a hyperbolic turd and almost completely devoid of either ethic or scruple in service to his politics, but this is ridiculous. One would think, after McCarthy and the blacklist, that Hollywood would be especially sensitive to the urge to censor. And in light of Moore's previous accomplishments in film and television, I have my doubts that the quality of the film is insufficient. That said, it *is*, however misguided, Disney's right as a business to release or not release films as they see fit. No one has a right to force a studio to release a film if they don't want to. The upshot being the Moore has a concomitant right, upon Disney's refusal, to bring his film to any and all the other studios for prospective release. I don't have any details of his contract with Disney, but I'd like to think that he can and will do exactly that.
  • Fes, you're my kind of conservative. (I too think Moore is a hyperbolic turd, but I thought Roger and Me was excellent, and I hope this movie gets released soon enough to help sink the S.S. Bush in November.
  • )
  • Moore has a funny story about meeting with Disney execs to release Roger & Me, in the "Goofy" building. Something about how they were gonna wack him in the Goofy building (funny last thoughts). Fes you're right about the business angle, but it's an argument against media conglomerates isn't it? i.e. this story won't be airing (at least not until Monday morning at 2 a.m.) on ABC. Or any of these radio stations, magazines, newspapers, television networks, internet sites . . . thanks to SideDish for the excellent 'who owns what' link
  • I second the "Michael Moore is a hyperbolic turd" sentiment. He's the Anne Coulter of the left. And the 1984 references? A bit, uh...hyperbolic.
  • Holy crap. That's just ridiculous. You want to silence Michael Moore? You certainly don't attempt to stop him releasing films. Especially if you're an enormous multinational company. If there's one guy who knows how to kick up a fuss, it's Michael Moore. And I'm gonna go right ahead and fourth the hyperbolic turd thing. Saying that, maybe what the American left needs is someone to stop with all the academic discussion and theory and say "What the fuck is going on?"
  • MM's latest Crockumentary will be distributed, it just won't be distributed by Disney's Buena Vista arm. Since Moore's agent knew about Disney's stance on this over a year ago, I can only presume that this is actually part of Moore's publicity plan. "Hey, look at me, Disney's trying to silence me...blah blah blah."
  • Monkeyfilter: Go right ahead and fourth the hyperbolic turd thing.
  • What are the hyperbolies that everyone is talking about?
  • Oh right like anyone would use the unbiased media for their own ends. You're a cynical man Coot.
  • Some think that Moore's logic is non-Euclidean. *looks up* Hi, Coot!
  • 1) Michael Moore is the Lefts Coulter, and except for TV Nation and Roger & Me does not deserve this kind of attention. 2) He also does not deserve this kind of censorship. 3)The Disney Spokeswoman quoted in many of these articles was, until recently ('bout a year or two ago) NY Gov. George Patakis top PR flunky.
  • Goddam pete_best4,657 jumped in the way of my "wit", then has the audacity to post a picture of Bush with a halo! On preview: Goddam Captain Psyko etc, etc.
  • Well, since I made the comment: it is my opinion that Moore tends to exagerate a bit with the facts and exercise a goodly deal of selective amnesia/editing/willful ignorance in furtherance of the points of his documentaries. I believe he doesn't play fairly with the subjects, is prone to fairly wild hyperbole, is more interested in provocation that solution, and that his vituperative anti-corporate, anti-conservative stance on many occasions an unfair characterization. That said, I will admit that he does have a wide following, so there must be at least some merit to his ideas, and I am surprised that Disney would stoop to not releasing his film. Corporations, after all, should in my opinion be apolitical. If Moore's film is thought to be a moneymaker? I would have no problem whatsoever releasing it, were I in Eisner's shoes. My responsibility as a CEO is not to the current administration or my personal political beliefs, but to the shareholders in my company, and the sole task they expect of me is simple: to see to it that the company is profitable, and remains so. So, not only does it seem that Eisner's refusal to release the film is based on his personal/political stance, by doing so he is shirking his responsibility to his bosses, the shareholders. UNLESS Eisner and Moore cooked this up together for exactly the sort of purposes Coot mentions; business is drummed up, some other arm of Disney's film division releases the movie, and Disney's shareholder's still get the benefits of Moore's revenues on their bottom line. Win-win!
  • Oh right like anyone would use the unbiased media for their own ends. You're a cynical man Coot. I prefer to think of it as astute realism pete_best. Just like homo sapiens, the aberrant subspecies, turdus hyperbolicus, spans the gamut of the American political landscape. Good Morning to the quidnunc kid.
  • Right back at ya, Coot!
  • I think the real piece of this story not being explored is Michael Eisner. He's already on thin ice with shareholders and the rest of the board. The guy's uber-cautious right now, and the last thing he needs is Moore rocking the boat. He had two choices: piss off one of the most vocal provocateurs in the country, or piss off red state America and face a massive boycott. Not a pleasant choice. Cory Doctorow's going to have a heart attack over this.
  • "Cory Doctorow's going to have a heart attack over this." Always a silver lining isn't there?
  • As a Disney Shareholder, allow me to reiterate my hatred for Mike Eisner. I voted for Roy.
  • It is nice to see, however, that big buisness is at least admitting that they are self-censoring themselves because they are afraid of pissing off the government. I have long maintained that the reason ClearChannel is so quick to censor themselves is that they are afraid that the government will get pissed and tighten the rules on the number of radio stations a company can own thereby forcing ClearChannel to break up or sell off stations.
  • I disagree that he is a lefty Anne Coulter. I mean, she wrote a book defending Joseph McCarthy as a true patriot. I always thought of Moore as a live action/written version of a political cartoonist. He tries to "draw" humorous conclusions from current events. Maybe it does not work all the time, and that is why people get upset. Moore is at least trying to be funny. AFAIK Coulter is not. The Coulter comparison is a stretch.
  • Perhaps you would be more comfortable w/ a Limbaugh comparison Sunshine? The net meaning of such a statement is the same IMHO.
  • Ann Coulter is an interesting phenomenon. On one hand, she declares some apparently staunch beliefs that would make Himmler (godwin!) blush, stammer, and draw circles in the dirt with his toe. One the other hand, she's kind of cute and sometimes funny, and my side of the ideological aisle has a real dearth of cute chicks and funny anything.
  • Yeah, and Moore has compared the terrorists murdering Iraqi civilians and picking off coalition troops to revolutionary minutemen. Coulter and Moore are both liars who are filled with venom and bile. Good enough for me.
  • I think that a comparison to Howard Stern would be best. He's conservative and he tries to be funny too.
  • I think Limbaugh would at least pilot the plane to a safe landing - then have you arrested. Coulter would just scream that you deserve to die while leaning into a nose dive. (hmm, i typed that as "noise dive" first . . that kinda works as well) jccalhoun I don't know how concerned Clear Channel is about it - their stations in my market are the most pro-Bush, pro-agenda blowtorches around. They'd get away with pretty much anything except eating white babies on-air. errr, which brings me to the acknowledgement that Moore can be over-the-top at times, which only hurts the message. At least his reasons are based in helping more than corporations or the very wealthy. on preview: the_leviathan where's that quote? i didn't see it
  • I think that a comparison to Howard Stern would be best. He's conservative and he tries to be funny too Nah. Howard Stern was never explicitly political in the past. When he was, it was either libertarian anti-censorshipness (which has transformed itself into his newfound liberalims), or utter self-aggrandizement (i.e. his brief run for governor or NY, or his endorsement of Christie Whitman in return for a rest stop in jersey being named after him.) Politics for Howard Stern has always been about helping his friends, and boosting his profile - never ideology. Moore is decidedly Ideological, as are Limbaugh and Coulter. Comparing Moore to Stern just doesn't work.
  • Pat Robertson, then?
  • Pat Buchanan?
  • First, can we stop the Orwellian language and start using the proper names for things? Those are not “contractors” in Iraq. They are not there to fix a roof or to pour concrete in a driveway. They are MERCENARIES and SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE. They are there for the money, and the money is very good if you live long enough to spend it. Halliburton is not a "company" doing business in Iraq. It is a WAR PROFITEER, bilking millions from the pockets of average Americans. In past wars they would have been arrested -- or worse. I also disagree with the choice of "minutemen" and "revolution", but I like the direction he took with the "call it what it is" line. It's understandable that local militia would fight an invading army - that's what they're for isn't it? What would they be called then - "homeland defense"? Anyway the point of the Bush administration spinning the naming of controversial elements is well-taken, and should be discussed. Hyperbolic turdery aside.
  • Should I consider myself a Soldier of Fortune?
  • I like it!
  • I think thats the problem. Moore is generally headed in the right direction, but he loses his head, goes too far, and forgets that the point of rhetoric is to convince people - not piss them off.
  • If Moore's film is thought to be a moneymaker? I would have no problem whatsoever releasing it, were I in Eisner's shoes. Bowling for Columbine grossed $40 million on $3 million production costs. Not a bad return on investment. You can say what you like about his politics, but Moore can put butts in the seats, and it would be stupid to allow potential profits to walk away. Disney's a 500 lb. gorilla, and has no reason to fear pissing off the Bushies. I'm guessing Eisner is putting political loyalty above profits. He'll be needing a favor or two after he's ousted.
  • Like I want Eisner to have any connection to MM! I think Moore should be digging in another place to find someone to distribute his flick. Surely there are other, less ideologically opposite distributors? If Stern can find one, MM can. They can pick it up later anyway, after the controversy has shifted to pure profit-taking.
  • I think the Moore/Limbaugh comparison is most apt: dominating their respective media sub-genres - Talk Radio for Rush and Documentary for Michael - while contributing to their declines in quality... As for Ann Coulter, she has to go to greater and greater extremes... you can only go so far by giving Bill Maher blow jobs. Excuse me, I think my meds are overdue
  • Yeah, and Moore has compared the terrorists murdering Iraqi civilians and picking off coalition troops to revolutionary minutemen. Wearing my British hat - Yes, the revolutionaries didn't fight a proper war. It is a fair comparison, nonetheless dependant upon your perspective, and similar in that both groups think they are righteous. In my view, Michael Moore is more truthful than most politicians are. What is important though is that he is asking people questions, not giving us answers.
  • i see moore as a rather unique individual with his own carefully established style for illuminating the ridiculous contradictions and cruelties of our culture, that we have become somewhat immune to otherwise. thus, comparisons to others aren't going to quite 'catch the essence of him and what he does best. the man is a gifted sh*t-disturber and fortunately, he's acting on the behalf of the people who need him. roger and me was his first big attempt and he keeps trying bigger things, now. the issues he's addressing in this movie have long been matters of discussion and debate in many circles. the concern seems to be the medium they will next be presented from. if the mass media distributes such to the general populace then the issues will become more tangible and readily grasped by everyone. now there's a scary thought for some people. moore will, indeed, use hyperbole and humour and skilful editing to present his thoughts. they are then more palatible for the 'every-day' person. forget the old adage here. the medium is not the message in this case. /i'm lucky in that i've never seen this coulter in action. i've only read about her and that was enough.
  • I'm surprised at the legs this story has - it was on NPR, CNN, with followups today etc. I more or less expected it to blogsplode and that would be it. dxlifer you are right to sheild your eyes. The goggles do nothing!
  • moore will, indeed, use hyperbole and humour and skilful editing to present his thoughts. they are then more palatible for the 'every-day' person. See, I would disagree at this point: in my opinion, those who would challenge the existing political and social structures (a much-maligned but always important and laudable role) should be extra careful NOT to do this, and instead be as truthful, as factual, as demonstrable and the least prone to hyperbole as they can. The status quo always has the upper hand, and those who would try to change it are always immediately suspect, both of truth and of motive. Subsequently, any incidence of fiddling the facts, if discovered, calls into question the entirety of a purveyor's credibility in the eyes of the complacent. It isn't fair, certainly, but it is the way the world works. Moore does himself and his occasional excellent point a disservice when he overstates his case for effect, since by doing so he gives his detractors all the ammo they need and then some to dismiss him. That said, I personally dislike the idea of highlighting an issue and questioning the status quo without going further and offering at least a possible solution or process to approach a solution. While I can see the value of the denouncer, I think it evinces a lack of thoughtfulness, intellectual laziness, and comes perilously close to whinyness. Again, that's just one man's opinion. Grains of salt available upon request.
  • If Moore is continuing to present his fiction as documentary, then Disney does well to distance themselves from his work.
  • Despite the pileon here, I'll be one to say I enjoy Michael Moore and look forward to seeing the movie (whatever studio releases it). Michael Moore is not ALWAYS full of bullshit. He called out Bush on his disservice to the National Guard "Dude, Where's My Country" long before the press got hold of the story (or cared to follow it) eventually leading the White House to scramble and defend themselves (which they still have yet to properly do). I don't think everything he says is fiction. I can read between the lines and see where he draws the line between satire and fact. Others apparently can't and I guess that is a turnoff point for some. I don't think there is anything wrong with questioning the current situation, and no, you're not always gonna get everything right. Goetter, your link contained many inaccuracies and conveniently left out source links for the bullshit claims THEY couldn't back up, so who's the better? All I know is at the end of the day Michael Moore has every right to release this film and Disney does itself a disservice to blatantly censor the film for political reasons.
  • Bleh. Moore has apparently admitted that all this was contrived.
  • That article makes it appear that Disney is not at fault for anything when the only real "stunt" was the idea that Moore knew nothing til Monday. I agree its disheartning, but the end result is the same, Disney has said Michael Moore can't release the film under Miramax. So ALL OF THIS was indeed not contrived.
  • Well, perhaps I mispoke, but that seems an awfully fine line to parse. But if Miramax told Moore a year ago that they would opt not to release the movie, but continued to fund it (which would seem to indicate that the movie was unfinished at the time Miramax make their decision, which belies the idea that the decision was politically motivated based on the content of the film), how is that censorship? and why has Moore decided only now, on the eve of release, to announce (in a fashion that was designed to lead people to believe that this was a recently made politically-motivated decision) to refuse to release it? I agree with you, Disney is likely no angel in this, but it is Moore who'll be tarred, and at least partially rightly so. A lot of people voiced support for Moore when they believed that he had legitimately been slighted, including the New York Times, and several people, on both sides of the aisle, in this thread, including myself. I can, as always, only speak for myself, but I find being manipulated in this way extraordinarily irritating. I will not see this film. And I think that you'll find, after this, Moore's detractors will become increasingly dismissive, and find a wide audience for that dismissiveness, for they can now make a demonstrably accurate claim that he is, if not an outright liar, then certainly someone who is not above manipulating the reportage of events to garner a certain specific reaction, and any point he'd have made in his work will be subsequently immediately suspect.
  • I can read between the lines and see where he draws the line between satire and fact. that's a good point, and it may be that Moore is subtle enough as a filmmaker that he intentionally does this as a way to balance making a point and providing entertainment, and to such a degree of expertise (no one, I don't think, is deriding Moore's ability as a filmmaker) as to make the distinction difficult. Few moviegoers in this day might be able to tell the difference. But I still stand behind my post a little ways up: if you want to *seriously* challenge the status quo, you need to be less fast and less loose with the facts. Moore the satirist portrays too much as fact, and Moore the dissident satirizes to the detriment of his efforts for social change.
  • Genial, in the end, you enjoy Moore's work, so you'll defend his work and take it in the best possible light. I think he's a bloated, bristly, lying, deceitful, manipulative sack of festering potato-chip-flecked pigshit, so I'm less charitably inclined. Usually Spinsanity's pretty good, so I'm curious about your "many inaccuracies." I certainly haven't done the homework myself.
  • Fes is correct. Again.
  • Dang - i gott start getting here earlier. /deletes_article_about_moore_admitting_stunt
  • Moore's response to the "publicity stunt" allegations can be found here (note: link may be temporary).
  • thanks for the link. i had wondered why and how the film had been realised, if permission had been denied a year ago at the corporate level. i wondered if someone else had fed the funds. although, i suppose that question remains unanswered. / moore has such a wonderful grasp of theatre, doesn't he?
  • actually i think he could use some subtlety lessons in theatre. His oscar acceptance speech would have been much more effective if it had been toned way down. But maybe if he was the kind of guy who tones it down he wouldn't be as provocative and questioning.
  • by his 'grasp of theatre', i was more referring to his ability to grasp and manipulate attention, in his own inimitable style, in order to present his soliloquy. for the most part, i agree with both his agenda and basic philosophy. i also laugh like a s-o-b at him and how he portrays things 'as they are', so to speak. /a free gun when you open a bank account? really? i don't always enjoy his techniques and he can get carried away. but i'm a big girl, i don't have to partake of the whole show. i admire his ability to be so offensive to so many people for the sake of getting heard. *i've always liked crusaders that can sacrifice with humour.*
  • According to Moore, it's not a publicity stunt, and he never said it was.
  • Um, pete_best3.14 ... I love ya, but check out the link on my last post. I chastise because I care.
  • i wouldn't see it as a publicity stunt either. he's simply getting the most mileage out of whatever the giants throw at him, in his usual histrionic fashion. that's his mastery of the sense of theatre (;-o
  • now, about those free guns i mentioned when you do business in america?
  • i say it again...a great sense of theatre, combined with a creditable crusade, and moore is the master. now he has refined the technique of jarring multiple sense with contradictory stimulii and guides the viewer to see the issue behind the many facades in new perspective[s]. it just keeps on working for him and is entertaining at the same time. /i suppose that summarises why i like him and his abilities.
  • a canadian review of the film gives a few more details of the content and technique. it certainly does sound as if he has perfected his agenda and skills for a blockbuster this time. /i just hate having to wait to see it!
  • wow that sounds like a tough movie. tough for me anyway.
  • actually i think he could use some subtlety lessons in theatre. His oscar acceptance speech would have been much more effective if it had been toned way down. But maybe if he was the kind of guy who tones it down he wouldn't be as provocative and questioning. pete_best, from what i've been reading in the latest reviews, he has toned it down, decimated his own presence and produced the most provocative and questioning film to date. but i agree that it sounds as if it's going to be hitting americans where it hurts the most....their beliefs and trust in their administration and the ability to save international face due to the machinations of a few for personal agendas.
  • It emphatically puts a bomb under the American President George Bush. India Times Review
  • He has given no evidence to substantiate his allegations Can he work that PR Machine or what.
  • Can he work that PR Machine or what. damned right he can. let's be glad he's working for the right causes.
  • Onion!
  • From the May 31, 2004 issue: An encounter with the Cannes man So now we are traveling in time, I feel a stomach ache coming on. But seriously, the fact that he tries to rehash the same old argument about "Moore knew about the disney crap a year ago, blah blah" and he contributes NY Times assertion of political motivations as Moore's own. Not saying the whole article is crap, but most of it is just the same old noise that's been debunked already.